X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:31:09 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-ob0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.1) with ESMTPS id 6006603 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:01:51 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=guldi.jim@gmail.com Received: by mail-ob0-f180.google.com with SMTP id wd20so1900848obb.11 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:01:16 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.60.32.234 with SMTP id m10mr44568129oei.7.1357920076017; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:01:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.98.41 with HTTP; Fri, 11 Jan 2013 08:01:15 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: X-Original-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:01:15 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Purchase Advice LNC2 From: Jim Guldi X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1eff2c3b1bb04d3056794 --e89a8fb1eff2c3b1bb04d3056794 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about this: People starting out don't have as much money and want to fly. I live at a flyin community and watch the fly off Sat mornings. More than 50% have only one occupent. Would this not be an Honorable use of a 235? There seems to be a need to say negative things about 235s On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Tim J=F8rgensen wrote: > ** > *I am disappointed in your response. It is jaded in many ways with > mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only the 320/360= . > * > > You are right, Gary. I am disappionted in my response too. > It was written off the top of my head and was factually wrong in several > places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to anyone who might have bee= n > offended by these thoughtless accusations. > > *From here it reads like you are in need of more information and flying > experience in both the 235 and the 320/360.* > > Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obviously felt compelled to d= o > some research and come back with an unjaded and factually accurate > statement, in order to correct my mistakes once and for all. > I have dug out the actual w&b sheet for the 235/320 in question. I have > also read my actual notes from my actual conversation with Lancair (Ross)= , > regarding factory recommended max. weights for the various LNC2 models. > > *The factually correct and unjaded numbers are:* > > Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight is 1400 lbs. This number neve= r > was and never will be raised. > > Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max. take off weight 1685 lbs. Max. > landing weight 1685 lbs. > > Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off weight was initially > 1685 lbs. but this was, *by the factory*, later raised to 1790 lbs. with > 1685 lbs. left as max. landing weight, though. > > I am utterly sorry about last days wrong, jaded and irresponsible > statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never. Sorry. > > The now corrected numbers obviously pose some factually correct and > unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depressed 235/320 friend: > > Gross wt. 1400 lbs. > Empty wt. 1010 lbs. > Pilot wt. 220 lbs. > 45 min. fuel reserve 39 lbs. > Wife (small model) 132 lbs. > > Luggage and fuel for flight planning max. -1 lbs. > > His factually correct and unjaded options are: > > Hmmmm, this is really not getting easier....... Okay: > > If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally > required 45 min. reserve, he should try the obvious first. If, for > some unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to shed the 90 > pounds, things get slightly more un-obvious: > > He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning -1 lbs. of fuel. This > might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, which > dramatically increases the risk of a tail first head-on collision. He wou= ld > also have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist. Hmmm... Expensive, > but surely doable........ > > If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will have = a > 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve > fuel. > > If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a > wife), it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing > him back into hindflight. > > He could, and now for better reason than ever, ditch the bitch and end up > with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs. operation time, still > maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could be the > preferable option. As a side effect, warm food might await his return. > > Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get a polite though heartfel= t > "no thanks". I might be tempted to encourage his mum in law to go, > though........ Be a true experimenter, you know......... > > Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue for > this particular 235/320. My new honest, unjaded, numbers only based opini= on > is: > > Back in the 80=B4s, Lance stated an empty weight of 800 lbs. I believe we > can all laugh at that joke. > You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235. I have not heard of any, bu= t > they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless you > want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I would > not do that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is t= he > aircraft well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it will > not turn into a 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after it. > > If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 > dollar bills, it will exceed gross weight....... > > *When your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours than > just the required test flight period, then I believe you will come to > understand more about them...well the 360 anyway. Unless someone is, or > has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), > then that person may be speaking out of turn.* > > You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will probably take my mathemati= c > skills to a new level. I, for one, would appreciate that change; 2 + 2 ha= s > been 4 for way too long! > > Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a joke. The numbers are > correct, but I happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t help it. I do = not > have anything against 235 owners, their planes or their wives, nor do I > wish to contribute to any kind of bad rap to these. I would also like to > state, that no animals were harmed during the writing of this message, no= r > will they be until the message is sent. > > The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on LML. He asked about the > pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding the differences between a 235 and a 320 and= the > money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers from people who have bee= n > here, there or in both places. I have built a 360MKIIOB and I have overse= en > the building of a 235/320 and done the w&b too. I have made paperwork for > both and I have talked to Lancair about both. I also have an opinion abou= t > both, which obliges me to give the man an honest answer. > I am well aware, that answering this kind of > questions sometimes renders you unpopular, but choosing not to answer at > all would be downright selfish and rude. I will pick unpopular over selfi= sh > and rude any second. > > If you wish to contribute to the debate, it would be helpful if you would > publish some numbers for your particular 235. > You also claim, that the gross weight was actually raised to 1500 lbs. at > some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many people would be > significantly less depressed. I know at least one....... > > Cheers > Tim Jorgensen > > --=20 "There are no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger Staubach ..jim guldi CFI --e89a8fb1eff2c3b1bb04d3056794 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable How about this: People starting out don't have as much money and want t= o fly. I live at a flyin community and watch the fly off Sat mornings.
=
More than 50% have only one occupent. Would this not be an H= onorable use of a 235? There seems to be a need to say negative things abou= t 235s

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Tim J=F8rge= nsen <tj@yacht-pool.dk> wrote:
I am disappointed in your response.=A0 It is jaded in many ways wi= th=20 mis-information to give the 235 a bad rap and to justify only=A0the=20 320/360.
=A0
You are right, Gary. = I am=20 disappionted in my response too.
It was written off the top of my head and=A0was= =20 factually wrong in several places. I hereby give my heartfelt apologies to= =20 anyone who might have been offended by=A0these thoughtless=20 accusations.
=A0
From here it reads like you are in need of more information and fl= ying=20 experience in both the 235 and the 320/360.
=A0
Yes, certainly. After reading your reply, I obvio= usly felt=20 compelled to do some research and come back with an unjaded and factually= =20 accurate statement, in order to correct=A0my mistakes once and for=20 all.
I have dug out the actual=A0w&b sheet for the= =20 235/320 in question. I have also=A0read my actual notes from my actual=20 conversation with Lancair (Ross), regarding factory recommended max. weight= s for=20 the various LNC2 models.
=A0
The factually correct and unjaded numbers= =20 are:
=A0
Lancair 235, max. take off & landing weight i= s 1400=20 lbs. This number=A0never was and=A0never will be raised.
=A0
Lancair 320/360 MKI (small tail), max.=A0take off= =20 weight 1685 lbs. Max. landing weight 1685 lbs.
=A0
Lancair 320/360 MKII (Dundee tail), max. take off= weight=20 was initially 1685 lbs. but this was, by the factory,=A0later raised= =20 to 1790 lbs. with 1685 lbs. left=A0as max. landing weight,=20 though.
=A0
I am utterly sorry about=A0last days wrong,=20 jaded=A0and irresponsible statements. It won=B4t happen again. Never.=20 Sorry.
=A0
The now corrected numbers=A0obviously pose some= =20 factually correct and unjaded challenges for my friendly but slightly depre= ssed=20 235/320 friend:
=A0
Gross wt.=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=20 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 1400 lbs.
Empty wt. =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=20 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 1010 lbs.
Pilot wt.=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=20 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0 220=20 lbs.
45 min. fuel reserve=A0=A0=A0=20 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 39 lbs.
Wife (small=20 model)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 132=20 lbs.
=A0
Luggage=A0and fuel for flight planning max.= =A0-1=20 lbs.
=A0
His factually correct and unjaded options=20 are:
=A0
Hmmmm, this is really not getting=A0easier....... Okay:
=A0
If he wants to maintain the 1.7 hour operation time and the legally=20 required 45 min. reserve,=A0he=A0should try the obvious first. If, for=20 some=A0unimaginable reason, his wife is not able to=A0shed the=A090=20 pounds,=A0things get slightly more un-obvious:=A0
=A0
He could fly backwards for 1.15 minutes, burning = -1 lbs.=20 of fuel. This might not be his best option, the visibility is rather poor, = which=20 dramatically increases the risk of a tail first=A0head-on collision. He wou= ld=20 also have to buy a new propeller with opposite twist.=A0Hmmm... Expensive,= =20 but surely doable........
=A0
If, for some reason, he is inclined towards forward flight, he will ha= ve a=20 43.85 min. operation time, wife included but without luggage and reserve=20 fuel.
=A0
If he decides to get a real wife (132 lbs. seems rather unreal for a= =20 wife),=A0it will cut deeply into this operation time, perhaps even forcing= =20 him=A0back into=A0hindflight.=A0
=A0
He could, and now for better reason than ever, di= tch the=20 bitch and=A0end up with a nice single seater with a 2.52 hrs.=A0operation= =20 time, still maintaining a 45 min. reserve but without luggage. This could b= e the=20 preferable option. As a side effect, warm food=A0might await his=20 return.=A0
=A0
Invite me for a ride (or his mum in law) and get = a polite=20 though heartfelt "no thanks".=A0I might be tempted to encourage h= is mum in=20 law to go, though........ Be a true experimenter, you know.........<= /div>
=A0
Well, that pretty much sums up the correct and unjaded numbers issue f= or=20 this particular 235/320. My new=A0honest, unjaded, numbers only based opini= on=20 is:
=A0
Back in the 80=B4s, Lance=A0stated an empty weight of 800 lbs.=20 I=A0believe we can all laugh at that joke.
You might be able to find a 950 lbs. 235/235.=A0I have not heard of an= y,=20 but they might be around. That will give you 450 lbs. of payload, unless yo= u=20 want to experiment with the firm weight limit set by the factory. I would n= ot do=20 that, but opinions may vary. Can you live with those numbers? Is the aircra= ft=20 well built? If so, go ahead. It is a nice aircraft, but it will not turn in= to a=20 320/360, no matter how much money you throw after it.
=A0
If you want to throw 15k in a 235/320, write a check! If you use 100 d= ollar=20 bills, it will exceed gross weight.......
=A0
When your machine is up and flying with significantly more hours t= han=20 just the=A0required test flight period, then I believe you will come to=20 understand more about them...well the 360 anyway.=A0 Unless someone is, or= =20 has been a 235 owner/flyer (and that applies to every other model too), the= n=20 that person may be=A0speaking out of turn.
=A0
You are so right. Some Lancair stick time will pr= obably=20 take my mathematic skills to a=A0new level. I, for one, would appreciate th= at=20 change; 2 + 2 has been 4 for way too long!
=A0
Now, Gary, this message is clearly meant as a jok= e. The=20 numbers are correct, but I=A0happen to like jokes. Sorry, I just can=B4t he= lp=20 it. I do not have anything against 235 owners,=A0their planes or=A0their=20 wives, nor do I wish to contribute to=A0any kind of bad rap to these.=20 I=A0would also like to state, that no animals were harmed during=A0the=20 writing of this message, nor will they be until the message is=20 sent.
=A0
The thing is, Paul Besing asked a question on=A0L= ML. He=20 asked=A0about the pro=B4s and con=B4s regarding=A0the differences between a= =20 235 and a 320 and the money involved. Paul is entitled to some answers=20 from=A0people who have been here, there or in both places. I have built a= =20 360MKIIOB and I have overseen the building of a 235/320 and done the w&= b=20 too. I have made paperwork for both and I have talked to Lancair about both= . I=20 also have an opinion about both, which obliges me to give the man an honest= =20 answer.
I am well aware, that answering this kind of=20 questions=A0sometimes=A0renders=A0you unpopular, but choosing not to=20 answer at all would be downright selfish and rude. I will pick unpopular ov= er=20 selfish and rude any second.
=A0
If you wish to contribute to the debate, it would= be=20 helpful if you would publish some numbers for your particular 235.
You also claim, that the gross weight was actuall= y raised=20 to 1500 lbs. at some point. Now, if you are able to document this, many peo= ple=20 would=A0be significantly less depressed. I know at least=20 one.......
=A0
Cheers
Tim Jorgensen
=A0



--

&q= uot;There are no traffic jams along the extra mile" - Roger Staubach



..jim guldi CFI


--e89a8fb1eff2c3b1bb04d3056794--